The influence of regional basic science campuses on medical students' choice of specialty and practice location: a historical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) employs eight regional basic science campuses, where half of the students complete their first two years of medical school. The other half complete all four years at the main campus in Indianapolis. The authors tested the hypothesis that training at regional campuses influences IUSM students to pursue primary care careers near the regional campuses they attended. METHODS: Medical school records for 2,487 graduates (classes of 1988-1997) were matched to the 2003 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to identify the medical specialty and practice location of each graduate. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the effect of regional campus attendance on students' choice of medical specialty and practice location, while simultaneously adjusting for several covariates thought to affect these career outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to Indianapolis students, those who attended a regional campus were somewhat more likely to be white, have parents with middle class occupations, and score slightly lower on the Medical College Admission Test. Any such differences were adjusted for in the regression models, which predicted that four of the regional campuses were significantly more likely than Indianapolis to produce family practitioners, and that five of the regional campuses were significantly more likely than the others to have former students practicing in the region. When analyzed collectively, attendance at any regional campus was a significant predictor of a primary care practice located outside the Indianapolis metropolitan area. CONCLUSION: Attending a regional campus for preclinical training appears to increase the likelihood of practicing primary care medicine in local communities.

Use of herbal remedies by Hispanic patients: do they inform their physician?

PURPOSE: This study measured the knowledge and use of herbs among Hispanics and assessed their experiences when discussing herb use with their physician. METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were collected from 620 Hispanic patients seeking treatment in urban health centers. RESULTS: Most (80.3%) reported using herbs. Herb users were more comfortable speaking Spanish (91.9% vs 80.2%) and had been in the United States less than 5 years (47.0% vs 29.4%). More users considered herbs as drugs (60.5% vs 39.6%). Users were more aware that herbs could harm a baby if taken during pregnancy (56.4% vs 36.0%). The majority did not know the English name for 23 of the 25 herbs. A majority indicated their physician was unaware of their herb use. Few (17.4%) responded that their physicians asked about herb use. Only 41.6% thought their physician would understand their herb use, and 1.8% believed their physician would encourage continued use. There were no significant differences between herb users and nonusers in their perception of patient-physician communication levels. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians need to be aware that most Hispanic patients are likely to use herbs. It is important to initiate and encourage discussion of their patient's interest in and use of these therapies.